News and citizen. [volume] (Morrisville, Vt. ;) 1881-current, 1887-01-27
LEGAL DECISIONS.

Contingent Fees-Before the Ameri-
can Bar Association, in the report of
committee, Judge Wright said: "The
temptation to dishonest practices and
the use of unprofessional shifts and
devices are strong enough whore the
retainer and services are upon q con-
tingency; and to allow the attorney,
under any CircUmstanl es, to advance
and become liable for costs and ex-
penses tends to pollute the whole
fountain, and he becomes the interest
ed practitioner and not the true and
noble advocate. We have enough OF
contingent retainers-attorney stand
ing IN the way of clients agreeing with
their adversaries, because of their
struggle to make illegitimate gain. II
the attorney will make o champertous
agreement, since, OF course, the client
makes the retainer with full knowl-
edge, L would have it, when disclosed,
operate to dismiss and forever bar
plaintiffs cause of action, or the claim
if preferred by defendant. A large per
cent. of our litigation is set on foot and
continued by reason OF those ubiquitous
champertous arrang gene nts, to the
detriment of the public interest and
the reproach of the bar and our Judi
cial system. Dis ountenance and pre-,
vent these in all ways possible" The
Albany LGlC Times, commenting on the
foregoing, suggests that the speculat-
ing attorney be made liable for costs.
AS the law now stands" it says, "the
attorney is a substantial party with no
liability, and the party of record is al
most always irresponsible. Let these
charitable gentlemen not have their
good deeds concealed, but compel them
to disclose their interest to the jury,
and in case of their defeat let them pay
the piper"
Statute of Limitations-In suit to
determine what constitutes an extension
of time by creditor so as to discharge
a surety, it was held: 1. That mort
gage given to secure a note is a mere
incident thereto, and payment on the
latter viii h has the effect to prolong
the time within viii q suit may be
brought thereon has the same effect on
the former. 2. That payment on a
debt evidenced by a note and secured
by a mortgage under Sc, ton % of the
Code of Q. Z. Is payment on the lat
ter as well as the former, and marks
the point Of time in the one case as
well as the other, from which the stat
ute of limitation runs. ?. That mort
gageor of property to secure the note of
another is so far a surety for such other,
and payment by the maker of the
note has the same effect on the mort
gage as if the mortgageor was a Joint
maker of the note. l.. II. Allen VS..
Eliza O'Donald; U. S. Circuit Court,
Dist. of Oregon.)
Statute of Frauds-Where q contract
of guaranty is entered into contempt
raneously with the principal contract,
and is either incorporated in the latter
or so distinctly refers to it as to show
that both agreements are parts of an
entire nsactiOn, the statute of frauds
does not require q consideration to be
expressed in the guaranty distinct
from that expressed in the principal
contract. This principle applies to
contract embodied in a written lease.
In s1ch case the consideration of the
guaranty is apparent upon the face OF
the whole agreement, and that is
enough. (Highland VS.. Dresser; Su.
preme Court of Minnesota
Sale-"Give or Take"-An offer by
one partner to give certain sum for
the other partners interest in the firm,
or to sell his own interest for the same
sum, concluding with the words, "tbe
party purchasing to give sufficient Sc
curity for the payment of company in.
debtedness and for purchase price,"
which offer was accepted by the other
partner ito sell on the terms men.
toned" was held not to be a complete
sale, and that the first offer was only
one of the steps leading to a sale,
which contemplated that parties should
meet and complete the transaction.
Gates vs.. Nelles; Supreme Court OF
Michigan.)
Sealed Verdict-It is competent for
parties to stipulate for the non-attend-
ance of jurors when a sealed verdict is
opened and read in open court. But a
mere agreement for a sealed verdict
does not have that effect nor deprive
the parties of the right to have the
jury polled. (St. Louis, Terre Haute
and Vandalia Railroad Company VS..
Christopher Faitz; Appellate Court,
Fourth District of illinois